Weight variance between repeaters and maximum hangs

chuckpr wrote:Tipton, thanks for the heads up. I've gone through a couple phases on the rung and haven't had skin issues yet (rung is mounted on a flat surface for hangboard stuff). I also campus on the small rungs during power training (15deg off vertical). Were you using the small rung on the incut or flat position? I put my rungs in the upside down position so there's no incut. During my first ever campus cycle I was using the large rungs in the incut position and it wreaked havoc on my skin. Once I started using the flat sides and moved from the large to the medium and small Metolius rungs my skin started holding up well (so far...). This will all be moot when I get my Rock Prodigy Training Center.

I use the flat side for my large hangboard edge and my campus board. The first cycle it split my skin I attributed it to diet, thinking I got too scrawny for my skin to recover. Started eating more which has definitely helped, but the skin tore first campus session of this cycle. My next attempt will be to use a different hold so I can go into the campus phase with that specific spot intact. Only time will tell.

And we all expect a review/pics of the RPTC once you get it. It's an injustice to brag about hot new training hardware without showing it off.

reboot wrote:I think some of you guys are getting a bit anal with this tracking progress thing. Just because it's not as easy to track progress doesn't mean it's not a good (or the best) exercise. You don't need clear gains between every session to be progressing overall, just like a company doesn't need to beat its profit estimate every quarter to be successful in the long term. So what if some day you feel like shit & can't PR. Stop being so myopic, try hard anyway, and have a little faith that what you are doing is good for you. End rant...

I love geeking out on my training, and logging my training! Yes, I am anal with logging my every session. I also don't even just log every detail of my workouts, but also keep track of other aspects which have an impact on my training as well. I log my weight, my diet, my energy levels, hours and quality of sleep, signs of injury so I can back off on intensity, beta on outside projects, and most importantly, my sends. It doesn't take me more then 10 minutes in a day to do this, so for me, why not?

Maybe this is too much for a lot of folks out there, but for to me to be able to ensure that I am understanding what is going on with my body and identify any correlations with sending my projects, it has proven to be useful.

And trust me, I do try hard each and every session, and that definitely doesn't always shape into improved results from session to session, but at least I'll know why (or have a pretty educated guess). Just my thoughts.

reboot wrote: That's their theory & it's worked out well for them. Doesn't mean it's optimal even for them, let alone the rest of us. Thing is a lot of training has very little immediate reward, and it's impossible to attribute your long term success/failure to the specifics of training.

Their training methodology seems pretty close to a lot of the advocated training knowledge out there for climbing, they just did a great job at breaking it down in a way that is easy to digest, and follow by climbers looking to get serious about training.

I'm also pretty sure that there would be a great numbers of climbers that could tell you that the Rockprodigy training program worked well for them by producing satisfying results, not just for the Andersons.

Is it optimal for every person? Like you said, probably not. But it definitely seems to be a reliable direction for people to take if they are stuck at a serious plateau from 'just climbing'.

TipsBeGone wrote: Their training methodology seems pretty close to a lot of the advocated training knowledge out there for climbing, they just did a great job at breaking it down in a way that is easy to digest, and follow by climbers looking to get serious about training.

I suspect the top reasons why the Andersons approach is popular on the internet are: 1) it is the most detailed plan freely available on the internet 2) they sort of presented themselves as the every man climber. IMO, their success can primarily be attributed to being extremely dedicated (the 90%) and developing a plan that's generally effective (the 10%).

I tried following their "plan" last year & so have some of my friends, with mixed results (pretty much can be summed up to "I feel way stronger but I'm climbing just a little harder numerically"). Through a few online exchanges, I realized the "plan" is actually more nuanced (in some ways closer than what I'd have guessed) and isn't entirely well suited for an area with almost year-round climbing.

Earlier this year I was on a different "plan" that has yielded good results for me. I attribute some of it to the luck of having my goals aligned with the "plan", training with like minded climbers, and the rest to just putting the effort in with a bit of fine tuning to exploit my weaknesses. What I don't think are the key include the hang time, number of repeats, intervals, amount of weights, number of sessions in a cycle, etc.